A response and a call to action against Arizona Senate Bill 1070.

Lawsuits

09/17/2012

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona
lawman Joe Arpaio is gearing up for what he expects will be the toughest
of his five re-election campaigns.

He is facing a determined
effort from immigration rights activists to push him out. A ruling may
come any day in a lawsuit that alleges his department violated the civil
rights of Hispanics. A second lawsuit filed by the Justice Department
is making its way through the courts.

And in TV ads, he doesn't mention the signature issue that
helped bring him to national prominence — a sign, people in both parties
say, that illegal immigration is losing its potency.

08/03/2012

PHOENIX — Testimony wrapped up Thursday in the civil trial against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office, who stand accused of systematically discriminating against Latinos through racial profiling.

It is now up to U.S. District Judge Murray Snow to determine whether or not the Sheriff’s officeviolated the civil rights of five Arizona Hispanics who sued “America’s toughest sheriff.” Snow indicated Thursday that he intends to make the ruling on whether or not intentional discrimination against Latinos exists within the agency and if the policies and practices result in unreasonable search and seizure.

Snow’s final ruling will come after Aug. 16, the day attorneys from both sides are scheduled to turn in their last round of written closing arguments.

The plaintiffs – five Arizona residents who claim they were racially profiled by MCSO deputies and the organization Somos America – are not seeking monetary rewards. Instead, they want the judge to issue an injunction ordering Arpaio’s office to adopt a policy that prohibits racial profiling and defines its meaning.

Judge Snow said Thursday that if he decides to issue an injunction, he will hear from the plaintiffs and the defendants before making a decision.

Locking up the innocent. Arresting his critics. Racial profiling. Meet America's meanest and most corrupt politician.

Joe Arpaio with detainees at his Tent City, which has been slapped with a federal lawsuit. Peter Yang

Hey! You! Get off of my cloud!

Joe Arpaio, the 80-year-old lawman who brands himself "America's toughest sheriff," is smiling like a delighted gnome. Nineteen floors above the blazing Arizona desert, the Phoenix sprawl ripples in the heat as Arpaio cues up the Rolling Stones to welcome a reporter "from that marijuana magazine."

Hey! You! Get off of my cloud!

The guided tour of Arpaio's legend has officially begun. Here, next to his desk, is the hand-painted sign of draconian rules for Tent City, the infamous jail he set up 20 years ago, in which some 2,000 inmates live under canvas tarps in the desert, forced to wear pink underwear beneath their black-and-white-striped uniforms while cracking rocks in the stifling heat. HARD LABOR, the sign reads. NO GIRLIE MAGAZINES!

From behind his desk, Arpaio pulls out a stack of news clips about himself, dozens of them, featuring the gruff, no-frills enforcer of Maricopa County, whose officers regularly round up illegal immigrants in late-night raids, his 60th made only a few days ago, at a local furniture store. "Everything I did, all over the world," he crows, flipping through the stories. "You can see this week: national magazine of Russia... BBC... Some people call me a publicity hound."

"My people said, 'You're stupid to do an interview with that magazine,'" says Arpaio, talking about Rolling Stone, "but hey, controversy – well, it hasn't hurt me in 50 years."

07/05/2012

The Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s immigration law shredded the law’s radical premise — that a state can write its own foreign policy, impose its own criminal punishments on the undocumented, set its own enforcement priorities and oblige the federal government to go along. That should be the final warning to Arizona and copycat states like Alabama: stop concocting criminal dragnets for civil violators. It’s not your job and you can’t do it.

But the ruling has not ended the struggle for civil rights in immigrant communities, or the fear on the ground, especially among Latinos. Far from it. It poses serious challenges to the Obama administration, responsible law-enforcement officials and immigrant advocates to keep up efforts to limit the damage when legislatures and police officers — not just in Arizona — run amok.

06/20/2012

The migrant rights movement in this country is about to enter a new phase and every person, no matter their position, will have to decide how they will relate to it.

While many are waiting to see the decision of the Supreme Court related to the Department of Justice’s SB1070 case, a human rights crisis of epic proportions is already roiling in Arizona.

The status quo we face now and the results of even the best possible decision from the Supreme Court still represent a steady march toward anti-immigrant attrition that the state has constructed over years. First we faced efforts to restrict our ability to function in society: drivers’ license bans, denial of social services, and English only rules. Then they built ways to humiliate and dehumanize us through Sheriff Arpaio’s outdoor jails and Florence’s expanding penal colonies.

From 2007 to 2010, even before SB1070 was introduced, our community faced checkpoints, bore witness to women forced to give birth in shackles, and traveled to work and school on a daily basis already wondering if we would reunite with our families and loved ones at the end of each day. In 2010, Arizona sought to erase us from history with a ban on ethnic studies and remove us altogether through SB1070.

05/10/2012

Reaction to the U.S. Department of Justice racial-profiling lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office:

"We applaud the Department of Justice and Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez for pressing forward with their investigation of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. For too long, rather than fairly enforcing the law, Arpaio has been living above the law ... The Justice Department has gone the extra mile in seeking agreement with Arpaio's department over training procedures, data collection methods, and an outreach to Arizona's Latino community. The sheriff's flat refusal to cooperate with the Department of Justice makes clear he places his ego over the interests of the residents of Maricopa County. Arpaio's tenure in office has been an embarrassment to Arizona, to the country, and to the rule of law. We hope that this lawsuit will ultimately lead to his removal from office."

--Angela M. Kelley, vice president for immigration policy and advocacy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

"It is very clear a dispute has broken out between the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, and it's forcing a dilemma for the White House. The DOJ is arriving late to a civil rights crime scene caused in large part by the Department of Homeland Security. Janet Napolitano got Arpaio his immigration badge when she was governor, and rather than correct her mistake as Secretary of DHS, she chose to create more Arpaios by expanding the dangerous 'Secure Communities' (SCOMM) program throughout the country. The case of Joe Arpaio demonstrates Secretary Napolitano's decision to make police 'force multipliers' in the immigration context has multiplied the force of civil rights violations. The DOJ action today will heighten demands on the White House to intervene and suspend Secure Communities."

"We all owe a great deal of gratitude to the civil rights workers of Arizona who have raised their crisis to the fore. Sheriff Arpaio is the best argument against the immigration status quo. His continued stay in office is warning to all of us facing the Arizonification of our towns and an urgent call for federal action. The president's legacy on immigration thus far has been defined by DHS's criminalizing immigrants instead of legalizing them. We hope his stance evolves."

05/03/2012

I found last week’s Supreme Court argument in the Arizona immigration case utterly depressing, and I’ve spent the intervening week puzzling over my reaction. It’s not simply that the federal government seems poised to lose: unlike the appeals court, the justices appear likely to find the heart of Arizona’s mean-spirited “attrition through enforcement” statute, S.B. 1070, permissible under federal law.

Poring over the argument transcript and the briefs, what finally came through as most deeply troubling was this: the failure of any participant in the argument, justice or advocate for either side, to affirm the simple humanity of Arizona’s several hundred thousand undocumented residents.

Both facts and logic tell us that this is a varied population. Different reasons, different routes and different times brought these individuals to Arizona. Half the adults among them hold jobs. Many are parents of American-born citizens of the United States. An untold number, while not possessing the right papers, are also not now deportable under our byzantine immigration laws. But whoever they are and whatever their stories, all are now likely to become what Arizona intended them to be when it enacted the law two years ago: hunted.

05/01/2012

In the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's anti-immigrant SB 1070, Department of Justice lawyers avoided arguing that any of the law's provisions, including the requirement that state police check the documents of suspected undocumented immigrants, invite racial profiling. In fact, at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts began the case by greeting the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (and the rest of the country) with: "No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?" To which the lawyer responded, "We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in this case." Later when Verrilli tried to make a point about Arizona Latinos who would be affected by the law, he backed away from the point after Justice Antonin Scalia complained that it sounded like racial profiling.

The technocrat lawyer in me might understand this strategy, reasoning that it's too soon to know if Latinos will be targeted by SB 1070 (although there's plenty of evidence already). The cynic in me believes that the Obama administration stayed away from racial profiling allegations because that claim falls too close to home. The framework for SB 1070 mirrors the federal immigration enforcement laws and guess what, ICE engages in racial profiling every day. The immigration historian in me, however, understands that SB 1070 is in fact all about racial profiling given the institutionalized racism under which the law and its copycat statutes across the country have emerged.

04/30/2012

This video shows excerpts from the Senate Judicial Hearing on April 24, 2012, It also shows testimony from Phoenix as hundreds rallied and marched on April 25, eventually blocking ICE and the streets the same day the Supreme court heard 1070. 9 protesters were arrested. For more info on the music visit:http://artisticreasonaz.bandcamp.com/track/its-bigger-than-hip-hop

While many focused on the US supreme court's consideration of Arizona's SB1070 on Wednesday, events on the streets of Phoenix and not in the court, foreshadow the future of the country's immigration debate. Within the supreme court, a very narrow legal principle was discussed – as to whether Arizona was infringing on the federal government's right to set immigration policy. In Phoenix, hundreds of demonstrators were clear about what was really at stake in the high court: a negative decision would clearly worsen Arizona's human rights crisis, but even a positive ruling would not solve it.

The simple fact is that SB1070 is merely a symptom of a far greater problem in Arizona where anti-immigrant sentiment has been used as an excuse to codify racism. Despite its repugnant stated intent to wage a war of attrition against immigrants, SB1070 at its core suggests that people who aren't white have a lesser right to be an American. It's a view that is spreading throughout the country, and it's a view that is threatening our proudest tradition as a nation of immigrants.

04/23/2012

The outcry was loud and widespread when Arizona lawmakers enacted SB1070 into law. Its passage rang an alarm, signaling a renewed threat to the human rights and civil liberties of all. At its core, SB1070 treats people as suspects for the color of their skin, and mandates harassment and discrimination. As this malicious model of public policy makes its way to the floors of legislative chambers across the country, it seeks to accomplish two major tenants of the attrition strategy: to embolden and encourage vigilante immigration enforcement and to drive fear into the hearts of targeted communities.

The next point of debate lands squarely in the chambers of the Supreme Court on April 25th. As the judges listen to the arguments of each side, communities in resistance to SB1070 pledge to state their own case. They invite us all to take part, to tell the story of what policies like SB1070 and ICE Access programs that create the same human rights crisis. It is up to us to raise this legal debate to a moral one. Do we want to be governed by laws with the malicious intent of SB1070? Is that how we want to treat each other?

Join the voices of Arizona families on April 25th. Arizona style immigration policies are the wrong direction for our country. Programs like Secure Communities don’t make us safer, we must Restore Trust.

Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio has never minced words when it comes to his contempt for the federal government's immigration policy, or its various investigations into civil rights and constitutional abuses by his office. But a recently uncovered 2009 recording of a speech Arpaio gave at a Texans for Immigration Reform meeting in Houston really took things up a notch. To laughs, he spoke of refusing to take part in the federal inquiries and bragged of kicking civil rights investigators out of his office. (In that case, a court order ultimately forced his participation.) Arpaio, who has a fondness for racial profiling as a part of law enforcement, also revealed that "after they went after me, we arrested 500 more just for spite."

When interviewed by the AP, Arpaio defended his remarks by saying that "these are not official, under-oath speeches." But when asked specifically about his "spite" comment, he doubled down. "It was wrong," he replied. "It wasn't 500. It was thousands."

Arizona’s cold-blooded immigration statute was enacted in 2010 to bring about “attrition through enforcement” — to make life so harsh for undocumented immigrants that they would be driven out of the state. It invites unfettered racial profiling and the abuse of police power. And, if allowed to stand, it opens the door to states’ writing their own foreign policy, in defiance of the Constitution.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on whether the state can enforce key parts of this law, despite the federal government’s exclusive constitutional authority to regulate foreign affairs, including immigration policy. Any sensible reading of the statute, the Constitution and legal precedents going back to the nation’s founding would say no.

04/09/2012

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's demand that the U.S. Justice Department "put up or shut up" when it comes to the civil-rights investigation into the Sheriff's Office fell on confused ears in Washington, D.C., based on a letter federal officials delivered to Montgomery Monday.

The Justice Department remains confused about Montgomery's role in representing the Sheriff's Office, but regardless of the role he wants to play, the federal civil-rights probe should not interfere with Montgomery's efforts to prosecute criminals in Maricopa County, according to the letter Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General Roy Austin wrote to Montgomery.

The Justice Department last December released findings from a three-year investigation into the Sheriff's Office that accused it of rampant discrimination against Latinos in its police and jail operations. Negotiations on remedies were expected to begin last week, with the explicit threat of a federal lawsuit if negotiations were unsuccessful.

The federal government's confusion stems, in part, from Montgomery's response to the notice of findings the Justice Department delivered in December to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arpaio's attorneys and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. On the day those findings were delivered, Montgomery told Justice Department officials that his office was not representing Arpaio and that federal investigators had "noticed the wrong party" in corresponding with the County Attorney's Office.

12/15/2011

DOJ Report Serves as Indictment of Local Immigration Enforcement Programs that Created Constitutional Crisis in Maricopa County

Today the Department of Justice concluded its three year investigation into civil rights violations in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. In response to the detailed report, Pablo Alvarado of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network issued the following response:

“The Department of Justice report formally and forcefully describes a civil and human rights crisis in Maricopa County; one that has moved hundreds of thousands to demonstrate around the globe over the past several years.

It is a ringing indictment of a Sheriff’s office that has 'treated all Latinos as if they were undocumented' and the federal immigration contracts that have made such prejudice possible. It is the most detailed chronicle of the failed end result of the federal programs that make monsters out of local law enforcement.

We have waited three years for federal intervention to restore justice in Maricopa County. Now that the Department of Justice has outlined the symptoms, it is time for the Department of Homeland security to terminate its immigration contracts with the Sheriff as a first step toward a cure.”

The Department of Justice report outlines years of biased policing that created “a chronic culture of disregard for basic legal and constitutional obligations (page 2).”

It goes on to detail that deputies used excessive force against Latinos and built a “wall of distrust between MCSO officers and Maricopa County Latino residents (page 2).”

The report finds, “Since roughly 2007, in the course of establishing its immigration enforcement program, MCSO has implemented practices that treat Latinos as if they are all undocumented, regardless of whether a legitimate factual basis exists to suspect that a person is undocumented (page 6).”

“Sheriff Arpaio has promoted a culture of bias in his organization and clearly communicated to his officers that biased policing would not only be tolerated, but encouraged (page 9).”

12/05/2011

If there were Black Hole of Calcutta for bad sheriffs, is there any doubt that Joe Arpaio would be in it?

Arpaio, the biggest un-indicted criminal in Arizona, is responsible for so much malfeasance, illegal activity and human misery, that his Teflon Don persona continues to amaze, even as the nearly 80 year-old autocrat is looking at running for re-election in 2012, yet again.

But there are signs that some of his shenanigans are finally being halted.

Such could be the case with the now four year-old civil rights lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio, in which clients represented by the ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union) and MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) have charged Arpaio, his underlings and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office with a pattern of racial profiling during its Hispanic-hunting sweeps of Latino neighborhoods.

Yesterday, federal Judge G. Murray Snow ordered a hearing with two hours of oral arguments for December 22 in a motion for summary judgment and other pending motions. You can read the order, here.

He's also asked for a supplemental briefing on various issues and pointed out things he wishes addressed in court.

Based on these, were I one of Arpaio's lawyers, I would not be looking forward to the hearing.

11/01/2011

PHOENIX — Groups opposing Arizona's immigration enforcement law have asked a federal judge to put a stop to a section of the statute that bans the blocking of traffic when people seek or offer day-labor services on streets.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other opponents filed a preliminary injunction request on Friday seeking to block enforcement of the provision, saying it unconstitutionally restricts the free speech rights of people who want to express their need for work. The request was filed in an existing lawsuit by the groups.

The state can't justify the statewide ban based on scattered instances of solicitations creating traffic problems in Phoenix, they said, adding that there are already laws on the books to deal with people who block traffic.

10/19/2011

In a performance worthy of a Mafia don, Sheriff Joe Arpaio dissembled under oath today in a disciplinary hearing for disgraced former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, and Thomas' ex-underlings, former deputy county attorneys Rachel Alexander and Lisa Aubuchon.

During more than two hours of questioning, mostly by counsel for the State Bar of Arizona, Arpaio's favorite response was, "I don't recall," which he repeated numerous times.

He asserted that he had delegated all authority concerning the investigations of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, county judges, and various other county officials to former Chief Deputy David Hendershott, Arpaio's hand-picked fall guy.

Though he admitted Hendershott briefed him regularly on investigations by the Maricopa County Anti-Corruption Enforcement unit, which went after the political enemies of the sheriff's and county attorney's, it was only "in general terms." The sheriff claimed ignorance of the "nuts and bolts" of the operations.

"I was not micromanaging these operations," Arpaio stated at one point, in direct contradiction to press releases, public statements, and reams of documents released following a whitewash review done by Arpaio's political ally, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.

On the one-year anniversary of his civil disobedience action in Phoenix, Ariz., protesting Arizona’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, Unitarian Universalist Association President Peter Morales stood trial in the Maricopa County Justice Court. With him in the July 29 trial, which concluded August 1, were Salvador Reza, a lead organizer with the immigrant rights group Puente Arizona, and two others.

On Friday, August 5, all four defendants were found guilty on misdemeanor charges of failing to comply with a police officer.

One year earlier, 29 Unitarian Universalists, including eight ministers, were arrested in Phoenix along with other immigrant rights activists while protesting Arizona’s strict anti-illegal immigration law Senate Bill 1070. They were among 150 UUs, many from out of state, who came to Phoenix for actions in support of immigrant families on July 29, 2010, the day SB 1070 went into effect. Opponents of SB 1070 say it encourages racial profiling by police, although a federal judge issued an injunction that blocked several controversial provisions of the law.

08/01/2011

I am about to go on trial in Phoenix. One year ago, I was arrested during an act of nonviolent civil disobedience to speak out against anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona. Side by side with local activists and fellow Unitarian Universalists from across the nation, I was protesting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's sweeps through Latino neighborhoods. It was July 29, 2010, the day Arizona's infamous SB 1070 went into effect.

Exactly one year later, on July 29, I return to stand trial. Let me be clear: the worst I will face pales in comparison to the hardships borne by so many others. Those who find themselves caught in the wrath of Sheriff Arpaio struggle as their families and their lives are torn apart.

As president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, I am a religious leader, not a political one. For me, joining the protest and being arrested along with fellow ministers, lay people, and local community activists was an act of religious witness. It was an affirmation of our common humanity and a spotlight on acts by law enforcement officials that marginalize and dehumanize our neighbors. These actions -- terrifying raids into private homes and racial profiling among them -- do not speak to humane immigration reform. They do nothing more than break our communities apart, person by person.

PHOENIX (CN) - Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces four more lawsuits from people - two of them attorneys - who say Arpaio's officers abused them after illegally arresting them last year for protesting Arizona's immigration law.

Sunita Patel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, claims she was "falsely arrested and imprisoned for approximately 15 hours, during which time she was repeatedly subjected to illegal and abusive custodial interrogations, and then maliciously prosecuted for almost a year thereafter, all in retaliation for exercising her constitutional rights to engage in the First Amendment protected activity of observing and documenting Maricopa County Sheriff's Office officers' behavior during a peaceful political protest."

Patel says she was standing on a sidewalk outside the Fourth Avenue Jail on July 29, 2010 "to observe and document the actions of the MSCO in policing First Amendment activity undertaken by hundreds of protestors peacefully protesting" the state's immigration law, Arizona Senate Bill 1070.

Patel, who had been asked to provide legal support by Puente, an immigrant-rights organization, and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, was wearing a neon green hat on the day of the protest to identify herself as "legal support," according to her complaint.

07/13/2011

(Reuters) - A year ago, immigrant labor activist Salvador Reza thought Arizona's tough state immigration crackdown could empty the work site he ran in north Phoenix.

But 12 months on, after a federal judge blocked key parts of the law, day laborers still line up from dawn to tout for work, occasionally heckled by protesters who want them gone. In short, deadlock.

"This is low intensity warfare that's going to go on for years," said Reza.

The stalemate at the sun-baked day labor site in Phoenix is emblematic of the impasse around the country as other states have followed Arizona's lead on immigration, only to be knocked back by the courts.

Parts of Arizona's law -- notably a measure requiring police to quiz those they detained and suspected of being in the country illegally about their immigration status -- were blocked hours before they took effect last July, after a judge ruled that immigration matters are Washington's responsibility.

Good news on the immigration front is few and far between, but lately some has been slowly seeping in.

Passage of comprehensive immigration reform is not imminent and the DREAM Act still does not have a real chance of being approved anytime soon, although we wish.

But there have been some minor yet encouraging victories.

One that has given a sense of real satisfaction to the many who have suffered abuse and discrimination at his hands has to do with the infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The self-proclaimed "America's toughest sheriff" has been ordered to pay Julián and Julio Mora, two Mexican men, $200,000 in a racial profiling case. Arpaio's deputies had detained the pair for three hours after stopping their pickup truck outside a landscaping company in February 2009.

But this time Arpaio's shenanigans carried an expensive price tag for Arizona taxpayers. A federal judge determined there was no probable cause to stop the men and they were entitled to monetary compensation. Chalk one up for the good guys.